Friday, November 15, 2013

Russell Brand and the Leader Question

Russell Brand’s recent calls for revolutionary change (in his BBC interview and in his article in
the New Statesman) have raised a considerable degree of discussion and
controversy. Predictably enough, those on the right have reacted by
generally dismissing the message. Not only do they characterize its
substance as unrealistic, they question the capacity of the messenger;
that this is an ad hominem is neither discussed nor, apparently, comprehended.

Although largely agreeing with the message, those on
the left tend to either uncritically root for the messenger, or fall
into arguments over leaders and structure and organization, not to
mention what the parameters of an international revolutionary subject
would encompass. This is not to say that these general tendencies of the
left and right are rigid or not fluid. Plenty on the radical left are
criticizing Brand. Among other things, his objectification of “beautiful
women” is – as Musa Okwonga,
among others, have pointed out – patently sexist. (That the name New
Statesman is patently sexist as well is, as far as I know, not under
discussion.)

In the end, however, Brand’s character flaws have little to
do with the validity of his arguments. Though they may mitigate his persuasive “power” – and
point to weaknesses in his thinking – they in no way diminish the need
for the elimination of, among other injustices, global pollution,
poverty, inequality, and the other systemically produced conditions
Brand argues should be eliminated. His character flaws, however, are
relevant to the extent that they cast light on the claims of proponents
of “leaderless” social movements. For in invoking Brand’s flaws, some
proponents of leaderlessness – like Natasha Lennard (who, ironically,
has over 7,000 Twitter “followers”) – undermine their own positions.
Writing in Salon, Lennard asks that “we temper our celebrations of
[Brand] according to his very pronounced flaws.”

Yet the argument against celebrating and raising
people to the status of leaders has little, if anything, to do with a
person’s “pronounced flaws.” Even flawless people should not be leaders.
According to the anti-leader argument not even gods, those flawless
beings, should be leaders. “No gods, no masters”, right?Among the more
problematic aspects of the Political Leader Question is the fact that
the term “leader” is particularly ambiguous. Does it mean ‘one who gives
commands’ (i.e., a dictator)? Or is it limited to the sense of
“spokesperson” (which means dictater in a more benign, but still
problematic, sense)? Or does it simply mean one who “leads by example”?
Or one who influences by charm and guile? Or does it mean “organizer”?

For their part, pro-leader people don’t seem to see how one could even
have a political movement without leaders. Meanwhile, anti-leader people seem incapable of
recognizing the clandestine leaders influencing strategies, priorities,
agendas, etc., within their own ranks. Neither side seems to discuss
what Jean Baudrillard, in his essay The Masses: The Implosion of the Social in the Media,
described as “the modern enigma of politics”: the 16th century thinker
Etienne de la Boetie’s insight that political leaders derive their power
less from taking it from those they rule over than by the subjected
population’s own renunciation of their own power.

In other words, the Leader Question is the Power
Question (not to mention the ideology question, the hegemony question,
the autonomy/heteronomy question, and the coercive versus non-coercive
power question, inter alia). Leaders and followers not only
simultaneously reproduce one another in a mutually reinforcing dynamic,
this dynamic arises whenever a person has influence over another. And
Russell Brand, with his eloquence and celebrity visibility, has no small
measure of influence over millions. That is, at least for the time
being, he is already a type of leader.